I have the right to life. If a child points a gun at me without cause, it is just, given this right, that physical force be imposed to deprive him of the gun. Given the rights of others to life too, it's also probably just that he and others like him be deterred from doing so in the future by further impositions-- such impositions being impossible to make without the bedrock of physical force to back them.

The imposition of something as a result of an offense is known as punishment :).

Physical punishment also referred to as corporal punishment according to me is not at all a justifiable method of punishing children. I would like to give a few definitions to begin---
corporal punishment is the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child's behavior.

In corporal punishment, an adult usually hits various parts of the child's body with a hand, or with canes, paddles, yardsticks, belts, or other objects expected to cause pain and fear.

Spanking is a form of corporal punishment intended to modify behavior usually defined as a physically non-injurious hit administered with an open hand to the buttocks. (http://www.irm-systems.com...)

It is never right to hit a child. Even the power of physical punishment to teach a child the difference between right and wrong is dubious; a young child may learn that the adult is displeased, but not why. Spanking will cause a state of extreme distress and confusion which makes it less likely they will analyze their behaviour with clarity. In older children disciplined at school, a physical punishment is likely to provoke resentment and further misbehaviour.
Physical punishment can never solve any problems !!! All it does is to aggravate the situation.

The actual physical damage inflicted via corporal punishment on children can be horrifying. Examples can be found of students needing treatment for broken arms, nerve and muscle damage, and cerebral haemorrhage. Spanking of the buttocks can cause damage to the sciatic nerve and therefore the leg to which it leads.The buttocks are a sexual zone; adults can derive pleasure from administering punishment to that zone, and can affect the psychosexual development of the children receiving it. Even the presence of another adult does not prevent the easy degeneration from punishment into child abuse. A notorious case from Arizona in 1995 saw school principal Michael Wetton, who had previous convictions for violence against children, convicted of abuse after forcing a 9 year-old boy and a 15-year old girl to strip naked and be paddled. In the girl's case, her mother was present, but "too frightened to resist".(http://www.idebate.org...)

Research has demonstrated a link between physical punishment and several negative developmental outcomes for children: physical injury, increased aggression, antisocial behavior, poorer adult adjustment, and grater tolerance of violence. Research has also shown that physical punishment poses a risk to the safety and development of children. It is imperative for parents to gain an awareness of other approaches to discipline because physical punishment can easily cross the line into child abuse and result in death. Each year thousands of children continue to die as a result of physical abuse. Children have a right to be protected from physical abuse.

Most parents want to discipline their children without the use of physical punishment. Parents' disciplinary methods serve as strong models to children that teach them how to deal with challenges presented by life from day to day. It is important for parents to model appropriate behavior and to establish expectations as well as limits. The dignity and rights of children must be respected. Parents must consistently use fair and logical consequences whenever children fail to follow rules(http://www.socialworkers.org...)

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims, may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, 1952

In 24 countries around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools(http://www.naturalchild.org...) . As it is even against the law therefore i consider physical punishment to a be a crime and therefore there can be no justification for it . In the eyes of the law physical punishment is same as murder and nothing can justify the 2 !!!!
Moreover all the parents/ teachers who physically punish children are brutish beasts.They have no right to hit anyone . What if the same started happening with adults that if someone made a mistkae we hit that person.Hitting children teaches them to become hitters themselves. Also extensive research data is now available to support a direct correlation between corporal punishment in childhood and aggressive or violent behavior in the teenage and adult years. Virtually all of the most dangerous criminals were regularly threatened and punished in childhood. It is nature's plan that children learn attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of their parents' actions, for good or ill. Thus it is the responsibility of parents to set an example of empathy and wisdom.(http://www.naturalchild.org...).
The United Nations too takje s the same same stand on the matter. Corporal punishment of children breaches their fundamental human rights to respect for human dignity and physical integrity. Its legality in almost every state worldwide - in contrast to other forms of inter-personal violence - challenges the universal right to equal protection under the law.

The aims of the Global Initiative already have the support of UNICEF, members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and key international human rights organisations and individuals. Click here for details of supporters of the Global Initiative.

In previous centuries, special defences existed in legislation in many states to justify corporal punishment of wives, servants, slaves and apprentices. Violence to women remains far too prevalent, but in most states it is no longer defended in legislation. It is paradoxical and an affront to humanity that the smallest and most vulnerable of people should have less protection from assault than adults. Click here for PDF (550KB) of the Global Initiative Handbook: Hitting people is wrong and children are people too.

During the first decade of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) its Treaty Body, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, has consistently stated that persisting legal and social acceptance of corporal punishment is incompatible with the Convention. The CRC requires states to protect children from "all forms of physical and mental violence" while in the care of parents and others (article 19).Other human rights Treaty Bodies - the Human Rights Committee, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in a recent General Comment) and the Committee Against Torture - have also condemned corporal punishment of children in various contexts, but not as yet comprehensively. The United Nations rules and guidelines on juvenile justice all support prohibition of corporal punishment. In 1999, a resolution of the Commission on Human Rights called on states "to take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent all forms of violence against children...". It requested all relevant human rights mechanisms, in particular special rapporteurs and working groups, within their mandates, "to pay attention to the special situations of violence against children".
((http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...).
PS-the reason for my forfeiting the 2nd round was because i had to go out of station for district level debate competition !

:Physical punishment also referred to as corporal punishment according to me is not at all a justifiable method of punishing children. I would like to give a few definitions to begin---
corporal punishment is the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child's behavior.

I would like to note that this is significantly narrower than what the resolution allows me to argue, and thus, even if you can establish it, you will not have addressed my argument.

:It is never right to hit a child.
If they have a gun and it is necessary to disarm them, it is never right?
If they are stealing it is never right to tackle them to retrieve property? That means you are arguing that the store owner they are stealing from is rightfully a slave, the fruits of his labour to be taken at whim.

:Children have a right to be protected from physical abuse.
No one has any rights if they are violating other people's rights.

Man's mind is the source of all valuation, and thus the highest value. "Rights," or proper social limits, arise from the requirements of life for those who have developed such minds- that is, from the syllogisms arising from the choice to live and the general facts of reality. You see, human beings need to use their mind without barrier to produce the various things they need, and thus need other such beings to refrain from creating such barriers to use of their mind and application to action. Since this is a reciprocal need, it is in each party's own self interest that they each refrain from violating it unless in retaliation to the other violating it, that is, so long as the other person's interfering with your need is a necessary condition of your violation of theirs, and vice versa, a RIGHT is established that you each possess-knowledge of how to protect yourself. This particular one, protection from barriers to use of the mind, is known as the right of liberty. A related one, protection from barriers to enjoyment of the product thereof, is known as the right of property. The source of these, at base, is the reciprocal need to not have actions taken toward your own destruction, this is known as the right to life.

The meaning of the reciprocity clause is that when you violate the rights of another, all your rights are gone. Children are not special, they are not rightful masters to our "rightful slavery," they exist under the same rules.

:Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims, may be the most oppressive.
Fortunately, my argument is not derived from the good of the children in question. It is derived from the good of whoever the children may be victimizing. If they are victimizing no one, then the situation is not an appropriate one for physical force against children-- but this does not alter the resolution, which simply requires that some situation exist in which physical force against children is justified.

:Most parents want to discipline their children without the use of physical punishment. Parents' disciplinary methods serve as strong models to children that teach them how to deal with challenges presented by life from day to day. It is important for parents to model appropriate behavior and to establish expectations as well as limits. The dignity and rights of children must be respected. Parents must consistently use fair and logical consequences whenever children fail to follow rules
I should note that while it is possible to discipline children without pain compliance, it is essentially impossible to discipline anyone who take steps to resist punishment without recourse to some sort of physical force.

:In 24 countries around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools(http://www.naturalchild.org......) .
First, arguments from what is currently legal do not establish what should be, second, it is nevertheless legal to use force against a child who is creating a danger to others, including for teachers, which is still a punishment (A sanction for the offense), regardless of it's non-retributive intent.

:As it is even against the law therefore i consider physical punishment to a be a crime and therefore there can be no justification for it
Fallacious. It was once against the law to shelter Jews from Nazis.

:In the eyes of the law physical punishment is same as murder
Also nonsense, unless you can demonstrate it to carry the same sentence.

I should note again that my opponent has not once attempted to address the essence of my argument.

Well, enjoyable pain wasn't directly relevant. It was just a demonstration of the extent. Neutral or mildly unpleasant pain is probably more what ya associate with disarming someone, depending on what technique you use and how good you are at it.

Hmmm... possibly. I suppose it depends on whether the "experience pain for purpose of control" phrasing could be interpreted to include the use of force to disarm the child, where the primary objective is not the provision of pain for the purpose of control but rather the use of force for the purpose of disarmament. If you assume that some pain must necessarily come of such efforts, then we could assume the intent to cause pain is present. If, on the other hand, it need not cause pain, then we could assume that the intent to cause pain is not present. I'm not entirely convinced that every effort to disarm, using force, need cause pain, even if most would.

"corporal punishment is the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain, but not injury, for the purpose of correction or control of the child's behavior.
"
Note that this essentially constitutes an admission of a broad definition of the term punishment, one that includes what I am talking about (prevention is control).

Note: as Pro actually admits that physical force is merely one component of corporal punishment, he has essentially conceded that Ragnar may talk about physical force being used in instances other than corporal punishment. However, it should also be noted that Ragnar's use of physical force as self-defense is not punishment but rather prevention, and is actually invalid as an argument under the resolution. Here we go:

(1) Con. I agreed with Con before the debate, as I assumed he would link physical force to corporal punishment and that the argument would be limited thereto.
(2) Pro. "I should note that while it is possible to discipline children without pain compliance, it is essentially impossible to discipline anyone who take steps to resist punishment without recourse to some sort of physical force." Agreed.
(3) Pro. Red forfeit = bad.
(4) Pro. Con had numerous spelling mistakes/typos.
(5) Tie. Con argued only against corporal punishment, Pro did not, but each did a reasonably good job in their respective arguments.
(6) Con. Many more sources.